Biggest and most welcome surpise was – nothing went wrong.
Nothing broke down, fell or crashed. Huge and complicated even went flawlessly. I was surprised.

prepare to be unsurprised

Looking at the OTO-Melara site, the Davide page has been removed. A system called “Strales” is covered which uses “DART’ ammunition but next to no useful details – has Davide been axed????
Strales: http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/development/STRALES.pdf

The US is currently engaged in 2 conflicts , IRAQ and AFGANISTAN with over 190,000 troops .

Same theatre. You don’t need 12 carriers just to cope with those two occupations. In fact you could have done it with no carriers (yeah I know the comeback, but honestly you could have).

190,000 troops outside the country fighting (not including carrier crews etc) and you want to believe that they can prepare for 2 more fronts ?

Evidently they can’t. That’s why North Korea and Iran escalated their nuclear programs after the invasion of Iraq because they could (and did) get away with it pretty much. DPRK despite the Pacific fleet and Japanese navy nearby.

Heck what do they know about ships and fighting . Its not like “its their job to fight” they just go their on jet ski’s , have fun and come back 8)

They know a lot about ships, but they are not unbiased. The USAF would equally argue that the B2 is vital whilst the navy would counter-argue that ship/sub based tomahawks could do the same job – both are right in so far as you don’t need both.

For the navy I see aircraft carriers as a strong role, but I don’t see the need for 12 supercarriers and a bunch of harier capable amphibious carriers to boot. Instead I see the excellent sub fleet, AEGIS ships with ever more comprehensive air defenses, and littoral combat ships are the key areas. I’d also like to see the arsenal ship reconsidered, and more “arsenal” SSBN conversions, better “harrier carriers” and more rapid development of strike UCAVs suitible for both the CVNs and the harrir-carriers.

The US would have to change its Strategic policy considerably . The USN wont be able to support the Current strategic policy with 4 carriers , its a political descision , we can shrink our air force to a few hundered fighters and no bombers aswell but the political demands from the military have to change.

Agreed although I think you could shrink the carrier force (and escorts) whilst still leaving a massive military more than able to meet the realistic demands of the next 20 years.

The USAF and non-carrier naval assets are more than enough. You want power projection with a carrier? – well yes with four that’s still at least two more than anyone else. And the amphibious carriers with harriers and later JSFs. But more importantly, the SSNs and DDGs give you enough naval power.

The carrier fraternity are sounding a bit like the battleship fans of the 1930s… “small wars” breed poor proving grounds for “big wars”.

Also, the White Tigers squadron markings are only on the older paint scheme…….:rolleyes:

Look really closely at the pic again, all four aircraft have the tiger in the same place. 😎

aesthetically I prefer the darker scheme

I don’t really buy the idea that USN does have a fighter gap. I really can’t see the need for he number of carriers in service anyway nor the likelihood of them being used in full on conventional warfare requiring ALL carriers anyway. The way I see it the current supply of Hornets and Super-Hornets s more than enough until the F-35 comes along.